Has Apocalypse 5 left you with
futureshock? Did Synopsis 5 leave you with the feeling that you are now just as
confused as before, only more intensely so?
Then it's time to have a break and let your brain
cool for a few minutes. Let's turn to a less ambitious
project:

Perl's so called "regular expressions" have long
since left the
original
meaning of that term behind. It's really ridicilous
that one of the most powerfull aspects of perl
should be named after the most restricted, simple grammars
you can imagine. It's high time we give
this thing a new name. I propose keeping the short form
"regexp" and just giving that a new interpretation.

This is the Apocalypse on Pattern Matching, generally having to do with
what we call "regular expressions", which are only marginally related
to real regular expressions. Nevertheless, the term has grown with the
capabilities of our pattern matching engines, so I'm not going to try
to fight linguistic necessity here. I will, however, generally call them
"regexes" (or "regexen", when I'm in an Anglo-Saxon mood).

Two things can be learned from here. First, there's no reason to
abandon the term "regular expression", or "regex" for short. It's
a term people know and have been using for a long, long time. Second,
there is a alternative term already, "Pattern Matching". A term used
in the Camel-III, and predating the first efforts on perl6.

This is very true. "Regular expressions" should be named something else. I am Lithuanian, so my native language is Lithuanian. The English phrase "regular expression" sounds OK with me, because I have accustomed to this meaning, but whenever someone tries to translate this term into Lithuanian things start to go plain weird.

The problem is that there is no direct translation, and everyone tries to translate it word by word. And so you get weird phrases like "paprastosios išraiškos" which roughly means "simple expressions" (and everyone knows they are very far from being simple!) or "reguliarioji išraiška", which I immediately associate with an expression that repeats regularly in time.

So this powerful tool must get a proper name, even if it was an abbreviation that would not be translated into any languages (that might even be the only sane solution)

Perl's regexes have rarely been "reg". I heard someone (chip?) call them irregexes. I have no problem calling them regexes, though. With the number of languages working with PCREs (Perl-compatible regular expressions), our regexes might become the standard someday.

Ahh... but the entire point of Apoc 5 is to make them more regular -- in the "not irregular" sense, anyway. I vote "EREML" (pronounced like dremel) for the new programming language. (If you think in terms of expressions, you're missing the (OK, a) point of a5.

<tongue_in_cheek>To cite japhy's cool 'invention', I'd vote for sexeger. Who said that sentence about coding would be like sex? If you do it worng it serves no fun. But sexeger is fun, well first was Perl to me, I later discovered regular expressions. So Perl was my first love, and we have the best sexever together.</tongue_in_cheek>
Well, Abbreviations are always fun :-)

What meanings do we want to convey?
Regexp are now more like functions, their field of use
has enlarged to the parsing of whole language defined by grammars. And parsing grammar
is
the selling point. What can do more can certainly do less.
I would call them grammexen to get the
point thru: "you can parse using grammexen, you can't using
plain old regexen". It makes clear that perl6 is not only
for assembling or lexing strings but that it can handle
complex languages. grammex ends like regex, so it is a reminder
that it is a related concept.

I want to spell it loud and clear. I don't want to hide the
clue about grammar in an acronym because most acronyms are
anacronyms.

Has Apocalypse 5 left you with futureshock? Did Synopsis 5 leave you with the feeling that you are now just as confused as before, only more intensely so?

It was no shock, but a very pleasant surprise.

Perl's so called "regular expressions" have long since left the original meaning of that term behind. It's really ridicilous that one of the most powerfull aspects of perl should be named after the most restricted, simple grammars you can imagine.

Who cares about the name? Well, apparently you do, but my point is that it's just a name. The power that the technique gives is important, the name is just an identifier.

It's high time we give this thing a new name.

No, it's not.

I propose keeping the short form "regexp"

Funny - Larry proposed to get rid of "regexp" and use "regex" instead.

I mostly agree with your points, though I wouldn't quite take so harsh a stance.

The upvote request irked me too; although it simply cancelled out the ++ for me, so I voted nothing.

I do think the point is a good one to raise, because names can be important - even though I do not think we should change the name "regex". It is just too ingrained for a successful attempt to change it and the meaning too long ago lost on the "general public" for a change to have any meaning.

Personally I like the change in Camel 3rd Ed to "pattern matching". That is both an old term as well as an accurate one. I'll try to stick to that.